SUBRATO SENGUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA, BIHAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20th May 2016 whereby the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2439 of 2016 stands dismissed, the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioner) has preferred the instant appeal with a further prayer for stay of the departmental proceedings initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 17th Dec. 2015.

(2.) Admittedly, 5 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged to the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing (EOW), CBI, Ranchi on the allegation that he while posted as Medium Enterprise Relationship Manager (MERM) at Commercial Branch, Bokaro for the period from 12th June, 2006 to 8th Dec., 2009 had committed the offence of forgery and cheating in the matter of cash credit limit and term loans of various accounts falling within the mischief of Sec. 120 B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 12 and 13 (2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the investigation in the criminal cases, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, Challans have already been filed in all 5 cases against the petitioner. On the same set of allegations, a departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) The plea taken by the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the charges in the departmental proceedings are replica of the charges of CBI proceedings as almost on similar set of facts departmental proceedings have been initiated and that in the departmental proceedings Investigating Officer of the criminal cases has also been called as a witness on behalf of the Bank and in case, the said Investigating Officer steps into the witness box and discloses all the steps taken by him which resulted into filing of 5 Challans against the petitioner on the basis of the documentary/oral evidence collected by him during investigation and the petitioner crossexamines the Investigating Officer also, which exercise is unavailable, he will have to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings, which, in turn, would prejudice his case in the criminal trial. The learned Writ Court finding itself not in agreement with the plea raised by the petitioner ultimately dismissed the writ petition.